Christian warfare sometimes involves taking hits from those who are hypocritical enough to use Christ's name to support their heresies. The current rage against sound orthodoxy has only strengthened my position against the spiritual wickedness with which we must contend. In a recent live discussion with Jason Bradfield of "Reign of Christ Ministries," he and I spoke on the topic of Hyper-Preterism. I pointed out to him that Hyper-Preterism is a heresy that has absolutely no historical support. I asked him to look at the evidence, and to weigh the probabilities of such a system being true.
Although he failed entirely to defend his position, he now has the chutzpah to claim that I am being "inconsistent," and endorsing "Three different views of eschatology." What he is really doing is twisting my position in which I clearly stated that the Millennium is not a ground of Biblical orthodoxy. There isn't a single creed or confession that preserves the correct doctrine of the Millennium. Therefore, honest differences of opinion must be allowable within the rule of faith. If you listen to our podcast you will hear me state this position again and again. Then hear how many times Jason brings up the topic of the Millennium. His is a losing battle.
It is evident that the Hyper-Preterist position is getting weaker every day. I took my best shot, and did some serious damage. Now it's 'rest up' time, as the "pity party" sends forth ambulances with kind words and soothing ointments. "Just believe in Jesus, Jason." Of course, it doesn't make any difference to them whether you believe in the correct system of Christ's teachings or not. According to their view, all the martyrs that ever went to the stake died in vain. For they could have believed just "any ol' thang" and been saved. Perhaps when we do get to heaven, Simon Magus will waddle forth to greet us. Wouldn't that be something?
In no way are these people being reverent when they allege that the Holy Spirit withheld His teaching influence for 2,000 years. Where is their Biblical support for this view? Also, if 2,000 years of Christian teachers were mistaken on eschatology, then can these folks prove that they are correct? As a matter of fact, they can't. Or if they do, they must kindly ask God to now resume His throne after such a long vacancy.
Dear Saints: Paul warned us that perilous times would come (2 Tim. 3: 1); affirming that, "In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4: 1). He warned us to beware of divers doctrines, and said "Brethren, be ye followers of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample" (Phil. 3: 17). Make no mistake, friends. These people are not following the Christianity of the New Testament. Can their faith save them? Will heresy bear out their professions? Will their novel errors prevail over the true teachings of 2,000 years? God forbid! On the contrary, the truth will break the teeth of this system. And Christian warfare entails riding out to battle every day. Onward to victory!
11 comments:
Brian, Jason pulled a similar stunt when critiquing my appearance on Roderick's show (when Roderick was still a hyperpreterist) - I am pretty sure I blogged on it, I will try to find the entry. I may also still have the audio. Of course, they did that in absentia as I would have refused any invitation to appear on their show. It was quite the compliment to Roderick that I was willing to appear on his, and that is because I knew he would stick on the topic we defined beforehand and wouldn't play games.
Brian,
As i shared with you in email, i'm done with you. You are CONSTANTLY distorting my position and do it yet once again in this post. You are the one that actually brought up the "millennial" thing...that wasn't my point. You completely distorted my argument.
That and to name just a few fallacies that a couple of listeners have noticed from you:
ad verecundiam, ad populum, appeal to ridicule, appeal to tradition, slippery slope, and so on.
Even on your OWN SITE a fellow "warrior" has to correct your fallacious arguing:
http://antipreterist.blogspot.com/2008/04/michael-sullivan.html?showComment=1209952200000
Your material is filled with this.
Because someone suffered for their beliefs, that makes their beliefs true? What nonsense.
I never embraced that "evidential" apologetic as a non-pret nor do i now as a pret who is reformed in his apologetics.
Brian, put Papias down for a second and a take a course in logic.
I remember getting on you before about having a proper understanding of the relationship between logic and Christianity and you replied with, "What does Aristotle have to do with Jesus?"
Like i said in email last night, if God is going to use someone to return me to "orthodoxy", it's not going to be you. I'll look elsewhere.
http://www.blubrry.com/player/?p=1509&e=213945
Dee Dee, have you listened to the show yet? Yes or no.
Jason,
Why are you lying to the public?? Anyone who checks your statement by listening to the podcast will see that you are wrong. You asked me my definition of orthodoxy, and I said, "The Christianity preserved by the ancient creeds and confessions." Then YOU raised the subject of the Millennium. You don't have a leg to stand on, my man. Your position is clearly the weaker one, as evidenced by the fact that you had to pin the silly little rock n' roll intro to the discussion. Is that Christian behavior?? I am not trying to convert anyone by my own strength. What I am doing is urging you to drop this heresy and return to sound orthodoxy. The "proof" you need for conviction is right on your bookshelf, Jason. I don't have to say anything. 2,000 years of sound teaching already says it for me.
Brian
Hi Dee Dee,
Well, Either Jason is dishonest or in denial. I don't know which, but I prefer to think the latter. He knows his system is wrong, but is afraid to leave it.
P.S.-- Jason, leave this false system. I am not your enemy, as you apparently think. I am simply pointing you back to sound doctrine.
Peace and Health,
Brian
I was NOT questioning whether amillennialism or premillennialism should be considered orthodox or not as defined by the creeds...YOU TWISTED MY WORDS TO MAKE THAT MY ARGUMENT and that was NOT what i was arguing for! How many times do i have to explain that to you? YOU ARE NOT LISTENING BRIAN. YOU ONLY HEAR WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.
Again, i don't have time for that.
What is more childish...me putting on an intro rock song to go in line with your claim that these are irrefutable arguments or you continually distorting my position?
If that is what "friends" do, then who needs "friends" like you?
i don't. Again, if i ever do return to orthodoxy, i will not hang around this type of baloney and advance these type of ridiculous tactics. I have talked to some very well-respected, anti-pret, reform men who have more class than this.
Jason,
You wouldn't have to worry about people 'disorting your position' if you held sound views to begin with. I assure you that this is paranoia on your part. You are too intelligent not to know that Hyper-Preterism is false. All you've got to do is make a stand. 2,000 years of Christianity should be enough to convince anyone. If it isn't, then you are in denial. You said that 'conservative, well-tested theology is accepted.' Well how about those creeds and confessions? Listen to the dictates of your connscience before you become shell-hardened to the truth. Playing with heresy is a dangerous thing, Jason. You need to throw it out before you harm yourself and others.
Peace and Health,
Brian
Brian I wish you had an edit function!!''Brian here is what I wrote regarding Jason's attempt to try to pull the same stunt when discussin my appearance on Roderick's show:
*****
This was said in the shoutbox on Roderick's site back then: "Jason’s point about the 4 mil views contrasted with the definition of orthodox = right thinking was excellent — so which is the orthodox position??? — Only ONE can be orthodox"
The logic and sheer ignorance here is staggering. Is THIS one of the supposed good points?? Do they mean the others are worse than this stinker? It is hard to even know where to begin with such equivocation of which the hyperpreterists are masters. Does Neb and Rod really think that when the term “orthodox” eschatology is used, it really means that every point of all four views is equally correct? Do they really think that people are just that freakin’ stupid that it took these two hyperpreterists to figure out that “Duhhhhh, they can’t all be exactly right!!!”????
The shoutbox hilarity continued with: And orthodox still means “conformance to what is established�? & “straight opinion�?, which imply ONE acceptable view… no matter how many comments you add to your blog.
And my commentary above delineated what that which is established is. Of course, Roderick’s crowd is so much smarter than the people who actually make statements to know what they really mean for without the hyperpreterists we would all walk around all day contadicting ourselves within words of each other and not knowing what we meant. Thank goodness for those hyperpreterists!! That which is established, which all 4 views are in conformity with is ONCE AGAIN:
There is a future physical resurrection
There is a future bodily return of Christ
There is a future final judgment
Thus the usage is completely inline. It is desparately dishonest to play otherwise. No one who uses that phrase in conjunction with multiple views is claiming that they are all correct on all points. No one. That would be psychotic.
*****
King Neb - ever since your freak-out session on my blog, please don't address me and expect an answer. There was a serious problem with your behaviour, and I will not be a party in encouraging it.
Alright, since Dee Dee answered, i'll answer one last time, then that will do.
uhhh, notice folks that she doesn't even quote me:
"Jason’s point about the 4 mil views contrasted with the definition of orthodox = right thinking was excellent — so which is the orthodox position??? — Only ONE can be orthodox"
This is the REAL reason why people like Dee Dee won't come onto a live show and interact. This is the reason why Dee Dee has to end it with, "ever since your freak-out session on my blog, please don't address me and expect an answer."
Dee Dee doesn't want to answer because she probably had not listened to the show yet and is commenting on something she knows nothing...merely going off of what Simmons says. THE EXACT SAME THING SHE DOES WITH THIS QUOTE - AGAIN, SHE'S NOT EVEN QUOTING ME!
Simmons does that as well. Simmons had to change his "bio" of Chuck Coty because the supposed quote from Chuck was actually a distorting quote that Scot grabbed from one of Coty's blog posts that Scot never approved. Instead of Simmmons checking with Chuck to see if the quote was what Chuck had actually said, he just cut and pastes it with no questions ask and presents that as Chuck's view.
Dee Dee is a coward who takes shots at people, claiming they said this or they said that, yet she doesn't even quote ME but quotes what someone thought i was saying and then tells me not to expect any interaction.
This is a favorite tactic for goons like Dee Dee, Roderick, and Scott. Portray my position wrongly and then to avoid any correction, they throw in the disclaimer after their lame cut and paste job that they are not going to interact.
Scott Thompson quotes Todd who complains about Virgil creating redirects, yet Scott Thompson has a redirect script on his blog. View the source code. It redirects certain people to universalistarchive.
These people are cowards.
And of course, Dee Dee will probably read this, get on here, and "interact" regardless in order to save face and 'prove' that what i was saying was that amillennialists should not be considered orthodoxy according to the creeds while in the same breathe tell me not to expect an answer. Coward.
Again, whether amill or premill should be considered orthodox according to the creeds wasn't even my point.
Dee Dee is an ignorant coward who, like Rod, just loves to destroy people as she sits all high and mighty on her throne, insisting that us little village people dare not approach her.
and lastly, let me employ another one of their favorite attacks. To prove to you that Dee Dee and Roderick are control freaks and love nothing but to be the center of attention, they are going to respond to this. Just watch folks, their seared consciences won't be able to resist the temptation to draw more attention to themselves by getting on here and responding.
It's true what one person has said - criticize the anti-prets and you'll die the death of a thousand emails and blog posts.
Just watch.
And Dee Dee, because of your ridiculous cut and paste job - you don't even quote me - don't expect an answer from me.
There is a serious problem with your behaviour and reading comprehension, and I will not be a party in encouraging it.
Post a Comment